Jacobus
tenBroek
Disability
Law
Symposium
April
17,
2009.
NFB
Headquarters
Baltimore,
Maryland,
USA.
Gerard
Quinn.
Director,
Centre
on
Disability
Law
&
Policy.
National
University
of
Ireland,
Galway.
www.nuigalway.ie/cdlp
‘International
Impact
of
the
United
Nations
Convention
the
Rights
of
Persons
with
Disabilities
–
A
New
Engine
of
Reform’.
1
Thank
you.
It
is
a
high
honour
and
privilege
to
be
here
today.
1.
Introduction.
It
is
said
that
law
is
too
important
to
be
left
to
lawyers.
Fred
Rodell
–
a
famous
Legal
Realist
at
Yale
–
once
wrote
that
the
practice
of
law
should
be
made
a
criminal
offence!
Naturally
I
disagree.
I
disagree
not
simply
because
the
sentiment
emanates
from
overstretched
and
overworked
stereotypes.
I
disagree
mainly
because
‐
on
occasion
–
law
intersects
with
ethics
–
with
our
better
side.
As
Holmes
once
said
‘it
is
the
outward
repository
of
our
values.’
To
live
in
that
intersection
–
where
law
intersects
with
ethics
to
produce
justice
–
is
inspiring.
But
it
also
leads
to
practical
change
which
affects
the
lives
of
many.
That
is
why
you
are
here
today.
To
see
a
theory
of
justice
embodied
in
a
single
instrument
–
in
a
single
piece
of
law
–
gives
one
confidence
in
the
possibility
of
seeking
justice
through
law.
That
is
precisely
why
the
Americans
with
Disabilities
Act
lit
a
fire
that
spread
rapidly
throughout
the
world.
And
so
it
is
with
the
new
United
National
Convention
on
the
Rights
of
Persons
with
Disabilities.
I
once
wrote
that
while
disability
rights
is
an
American
invention,
it
is
now
truly
a
global
challenge.
I
want
to
talk
about
why
such
a
convention
was
deemed
necessary.
As
usual
there
is
a
formalistic
answer
that
doesn’t
really
reveal
the
true
essence
of
the
convention.
I
will
give
a
different
answer.
I
will
suggest
that
the
real
added‐value
of
the
convention
lies
in
its
ability
to
trigger
a
new
kind
of
disability
politics
worldwide.
This
is
admittedly
a
very
non‐legalistic
answer
to
a
legal
question.
But
I
believe
it
holds
the
key
to
the
future
of
disability
law
reform
throughout
the
world.
For
without
a
new
dynamic
of
change
–
one
that
can
sustain
itself
–
we
will
not
see
real
change
happening.
2
And
I
also
want
to
talk
about
the
future
–
about
how
to
optimize
this
potential
and
our
collective
responsibilities
in
that
regard.
This
new
dynamic
of
change
won’t
happen
just
because
the
convention
exists.
Beware
of
this
‘temptation
of
elegance’.
Treaties
are
not
self‐executing.
A
convention
initiates
a
process.
It’s
down
to
us
to
make
the
process
work.
Change
will
only
happen
because
the
convention
energizes
us
to
become
more
engaged
in
assisting
others
to
find
their
own
solutions.
2.
The
Convention
–
Exposing
Contradiction.
But
first
why
was
such
a
convention
necessary?
Let
me
start
from
an
unusual
departure
point!
With
due
deference
to
John
Adams,
you
all
know
that
Thomas
Jefferson
espoused
a
particular
theory
of
Republican
Government
–
a
theory
that
both
justified
the
Revolution
and
that
continued
to
inform
his
view
as
to
the
future
development
of
the
US.
He
may
have
been
wrong
–
certainly
Adams
viewed
him
as
wrong
‐
but
he
was
steadfast
in
his
vision.
Yet
even
he
did
not
–
or
could
not
–
face
the
contradiction
between
declaring
that
‘all
men
were
equal’
on
the
one
hand,
and
continuing
the
institution
of
slavery
on
the
other.
While
his
values
were
admirable
–
his
application
of
them
was
flawed.
Famously,
he
did
not
face
the
contradiction.
That
came
much
later
with
the
Civil
War
Amendments.
Likewise,
let
me
suggest
that
the
issue
in
disability
–
across
the
world
–
has
nothing
to
do
with
the
integrity
of
our
legacy
values.
Instead,
it
has
to
do
with
the
way
in
which
these
values
are
deflected,
misapplied
or
not
applied
in
the
context
of
disability.
After
all,
we
had
an
entire
edifice
of
human
values
enshrined
in
the
two
headline
UN
human
rights
treaties:
the
UN
Covenant
on
Civil
&
Political
Rights,
in
the
UN
Covenant
on
Economic,
Social
&
Cultural
Rights.
They
were
further
particularized
in
3
the
various
UN
thematic
treaties
focused
on
women
(CDAW),
on
Children
(CRC)
and
on
Racial
Minorities
(CERD).
It
is
a
very
fair
question
to
ask
why
these
treaties
–
which
purported
to
be
universal
–
did
not
in
fact
yield
benefit
for
persons
with
disabilities?
Some
will
explain
it
by
saying
that
there
were
‘demand‐side’
problems
–
persons
with
disabilities
themselves
did
not
look
to
these
treaties
for
validation
of
their
claims
and
for
just
satisfaction.
Some
will
explain
it
by
saying
that
there
were
‘supply‐side’
problems:
that
the
people
appointed
to
the
various
convention
bodies
were
just
not
attuned
to
disability
as
an
equality
and
rights
issue.
Both
explanations
are
correct.
Yet
I
think
there
is
a
deeper
reason.
The
discounting
of
persons
with
disabilities
in
culture
was
in
fact
reflected
in
the
intellectual
structure
of
these
treaties
and
especially
in
the
way
they
were
interpreted.
At
one
level
there
was
no
need
for
a
new
convention
since
the
existing
normative
instruments
were
certainly
capable
of
being
applied
in
the
context
of
disability.
On
the
other
hand,
there
was
little
prospect
of
this
unless
the
prodding
of
a
new
instrument
was
added
to
the
equation.
So,
to
me,
the
main
value
of
the
convention
–
like
the
14th
Amendment
‐
is
that
it
forces
us
to
face
the
contradiction
between
the
‘myth
system’
of
our
laws
and
its
‘operation
system’.
And
the
14th
Amendment
was
the
lifework
of
Jacobus
tenBroek.
It
is
said
that
John
Browne
made
it
impossible
for
people
to
sit
on
the
fence
on
slavery.
After
Harper’s
Ferry
you
had
to
take
a
side.
Well,
the
convention
is
our
Harper’s
Ferry
moment
on
the
world
stage
with
respect
to
disability.
Holding
the
mirror
of
the
convention
up
to
society
is
important.
It
seems
that
the
default
setting
of
nearly
every
culture
in
the
world
is
to
discount
persons
with
disabilities
–
without
experiencing
any
sense
of
contradiction.
Henceforth,
it
is
no
4
longer
possible
to
explain
away
the
exclusion
on
grounds
of
paternalism
or
a
sense
of
misplaced
welfare.
Facing
the
contradiction
is
a
beginning.
What
it
should
lead
to
is
a
roadmap
for
change.
Logically,
this
roadmap
should
be
expressed
as
a
National
Disability
Strategy
–
one
that
builds
on
disability
discrimination
law
but
which
goes
beyond
it
to
include
social
and
other
support
programmes.
My
own
experience
on
the
other
side
of
the
Atlantic
tells
me
that
if
the
roadmap
is
bottomed
on
a
realization
of
this
contradiction
between
myth
and
reality
and
a
real
urge
to
close
the
gap
then
it
can
be
sustained
even
during
rough
patches.
But
if
it
becomes
simply
a
technical
process
of
law
reform
divorced
from
this
underlying
understanding
then
it
will
predictably
stall.
3.
The
Limits
and
Possibilities
of
International
Law
as
an
Engine
of
Change.
Before
outlining
how
the
convention
creates
space
for
a
new
dynamics
of
disability
politic
and
reform,
let
me
first
address
a
threshold
issue
which
has
to
do
with
the
value
of
international
law
in
the
first
place.
I
am
sure
it
must
be
at
the
back
of
your
minds.
Some
will
make
exaggerated
claims
for
international
law
–
that
it
can
force
recalcitrant
States
to
conform,
that
it
contains
hard
and
fast
norms
that
if
interpreted
properly
lead
to
one
right
answer
on
every
question.
I
don’t
believe
this
–
and
very
few
public
international
lawyers
claim
this.
True,
international
courts
such
as
the
European
Court
of
Human
Rights
can
have
a
dramatic
impact.
But
that
court
has
spent
decades
building
its
institutional
legitimacy.
As
you
know,
there
is
no
court
attached
to
the
disability
convention.
And,
as
befits
a
convention
that
in
its
essence
pivots
on
the
equality
idea,
there
will
many
occasions
when
the
language
of
the
text
restates
rather
than
resolves
hard
cases.
5
There
are
others
who
will
claim
that
international
law
does
not
exist
in
the
sense
that
it
can
significantly
drive
state
behaviour.
Rather,
States
comply
when
they
want
to
and
when
its
suits
their
interests
to
do
so
–
and
vice
versa.
This
may
be
descriptively
true
in
many
instances.
But
that
does
not
mean
to
me
that
international
law
is
robbed
of
all
autonomy.
In
any
event,
even
if
one
were
to
subscribe
to
this
view
then
it
would
certainly
be
true
to
say
that
it
is
in
the
interests
of
the
US
to
engage
in
the
convention
process
because
–
as
Jefferson
would
put
it
–
espousing
and
spreading
the
concept
of
freedom
is
not
just
in
your
interests
–
it
is
your
primary
interest.
To
me,
there
is
a
third
way
that
international
law
can
bring
about
a
transformed
domestic
policy
environment.
It
is
said
the
socialisation
and
acculturation
can
also
nudge
meaningful
change.
In
other
words,
States
–
or
a
least
actors
within
States
such
as
senior
policy
makers
and
especially
those
conscious
of
their
country’s
international
reputation
–
could
become
socialised
to
align
policy
with
the
cosmopolitan
norms
and
thus
bring
about
meaningful
change.
If
a
critical
mass
of
key
policy
makers
can
be
persuaded
–
either
through
‘persuasion’
or
‘socialisation’
to
tackle
a
core
impediment
(especially
one
that
might
have
huge
symbolic
value
such
as
outdated
conceptions
of
legal
capacity)
then
change
can
happen.
And
of
course
the
really
interesting
thing
about
such
policy
breakthroughs
is
that
even
when
there
is
significant
domestic
pushback
this
resistance
tends
to
fade
through
time
and
the
momentous
change
of
today
becomes
simply
part
of
the
(new)
orthodoxy
of
tomorrow
‐
thus
making
further
change
easier.
But
how
can
we
ensure
‘persuasion’
and
‘socialisation’?
One
should
not
rely
on
the
fact
that
many
State
delegates
were
in
fact
‘persuaded’
or
‘socialised’
during
the
negotiations
(which
they
clearly
were).
Such
delegates
must
also
become
‘normative
entrepreneurs’
within
their
own
administrations
upon
their
return
home
or
inspire
others
to
initiate
change.
Since
diplomats
do
not
normally
rotate
home,
a
6
new
set
of
institutional
champions
who
are
strongly
motivated
to
reshape
domestic
law
and
policy
in
line
with
the
convention
to
will
have
to
emerge.
To
me
this
can
only
happen
when
the
convention
is
used
to
open
a
new
space
for
a
different
kind
of
disability
politics.
4.
The
Convention
–
Substantive
Rights
& Procedural
Innovation
Let
me
briefly
highlight
some
features
of
the
roadmap
for
reform
in
the
Convention
–
both
in
terms
of
substance
and
process.
Benjamin
Franklin
once
said
that
he
developed
a
lifelong
aversion
to
drafting
a
text
only
to
see
it
edited
by
a
committee.
Yet
it
has
to
be
said
that
the
text
of
the
convention
produced
by
the
Ad
Hoc
Committee
in
the
UN
seems
to
have
survived
reasonably
intact
with
a
clear
focus.
The
convention
itself
is
not
a
traditional
charter
of
substantive
rights.
And
it
is
not
just
a
bald
non‐discrimination
instrument.
It
is
a
hybrid
between
substantive
rights
and
non‐discrimination.
It
is
effectively
an
equal
opportunities
instrument
at
the
international
level
building
on
successful
models
under
comparative
law.
Substantive
Rights.
The
convention
meets
a
longstanding
demand
of
the
disabled
community
to
adopt
and
adapt
the
general
human
rights
to
which
we
are
all
accustomed
and
tailor
them
to
the
disability
context
to
ensure
that
they
are
real
and
not
just
rhetorical.
For
example,
it
tailors
traditional
rights
in
the
context
of
disability
by:
•
ensuring
that
the
dignity
of
persons
with
disabilities
is
respected
by
protecting
them
against
violence,
exploitation
and
abuse,
7
•
by
giving
power
and
autonomy
back
to
persons
with
disabilities
over
their
own
lives
–
specifically
by
restoring
the
capacity
to
make
decisions
for
themselves
and
to
live
independently,
•
by
focusing
on
the
obstacles
to
participation
and
crafting
broad
liberty
rights
to
ensure
these
obstacles
can
be
dissolved,
•
by
ensuring
that
economic
and
social
supports
and
services
and
rights
–
far
from
being
part
of
the
problem
as
in
the
past
–
are
now
genuinely
part
of
the
solution.
Persons
with
disabilities
–
just
like
all
citizens
–
do
not
want
welfare
or
other
supports
as
compensation
for
not
being
in
the
mainstream
–
they
do
not
want
this
support
simply
to
survive.
They
need
social
supports
re‐engineered
so
that
they
can
lead
active
and
productive
lives.
So,
from
a
substantive
point
of
view
the
convention
enunciates
and
elaborates
a
theory
of
equality
and
then
clarifies
the
various
substantive
rights
to
ensure
that
they
are
equally
available,
in
practice,
to
persons
with
disabilities.
A
key
point
needs
to
be
made
with
respect
to
those
rights
such
as
equal
access
to
health
care
that
are
both
cost‐intensive
as
well
as
time
dependent.
Article
4.2
is
to
the
effect
that
such
rights
are
to
be
achieved
‘progressively.’
While
this
necessarily
genuflects
before
economic
reality
it
is
not
a
care
blanche
for
States.
European
jurisprudence
interprets
such
an
obligation
to
mean
that
there
is
at
least
a
dynamic
of
change
in
place
going
in
the
right
direction,
that
the
pace
of
change
is
meaningful
and
measurable
and
that
the
negative
impact
of
slow
progress
is
fully
taken
into
account
not
just
for
those
directly
affected
but
for
others
too.
The
convention
does
not
require
instant
fixes
on
some
of
the
more
complicated
law
reform
challenges.
But
it
certainly
requires
good
faith
efforts
to
initiate
a
meaningful
process
of
change.
I
submit
this
is
a
highly
relevant
consideration
for
the
US
to
take
into
account
when
weighing
up
its
ratification.
Procedural
Reform.
8
To
me,
the
process­based
innovations
are
equally
if
not
more
striking.
And
that’s
what
I
really
want
to
get
at
today.
How
is
this
space
for
change
to
be
created?
At
the
international
level
a
new
treaty
body
has
been
established
–the
UN
Committee
on
the
Rights
of
Persons
–
which
will
assess
State
performance
by
reviewing
period
State
Reports.
It
will
have
the
competence
to
entertain
individual
or
group
complaints
provided
the
relevant
Government
opts
in
to
an
Optional
Protocol
to
that
effect.
It
will
clarify
the
norms
of
the
convention.
We
in
fact
advocated
for
something
different
during
the
negotiations
but
the
States
reverted
to
this
very
traditional
model
of
monitoring.
You
should
look
to
this
body
for
authoritative
interpretations
of
the
convention
in
the
years
ahead.
Such
interpretations
will
be
developed
in
line
with
the
established
jurisprudence
of
the
other
treaty
monitoring
bodies
including
those
that
are
attached
to
conventions
that
the
US
has
already
ratified.
And
also
at
the
international
level
a
Conference
of
States
Parties
has
been
established
at
the
international
with
an
extremely
wide
remit
to
exchange
policy
perspectives.
This
has
the
potential
to
channel
the
collective
effort
of
States.
It
could
become
the
main
clearinghouse
in
the
world
on
disability
law
&
policy
–
provided
it
has
the
right
leadership.
This
is
another
reason
why
we
need
your
active
engagement.
Yet
it
is
the
procedural
innovations
at
the
domestic
level
are
the
most
remarkable
of
all.
Oliver
Wendell
Holmes
once
wrote
that
to
truly
assess
a
new
idea,
a
value
or
a
legal
instrument,
you
must
first
pour
cynical
acid
over
it
and
see
if
anything
remains.
I
am
often
asked
‘where
is
the
pulse
of
this
convention’.
I
used
to
reply
that
it
resides
in
this
shift
from
viewing
persons
with
disabilities
as
objects
to
viewing
them
as
subjects.
But
it
is
much
more
than
that.
9
There
are
a
lot
of
bad
laws,
policies
and
programmes
around
the
world
on
disability.
And
the
rights
and
obligations
contained
in
the
convention
will
enable
one
to
challenge
these
laws.
That,
at
any
rate,
is
a
lawyer’s
way
of
looking
at
the
convention.
I
take
a
broader
view
of
the
convention
and
its
potential
to
help
frame
change.
I
believe
you
miss
the
point
if
you
confine
the
convention
to
the
traditional
role
of
challenging
bad
laws
and
policies.
To
me
the
most
important
potential
of
the
convention
resides
in
its
potential
to
transform
the
process
that
leads
to
these
laws
in
the
first
place.
One
reason
why
bad
laws
were
enacted
in
the
past
had
something
to
do
with
the
relative
invisibility
of
disability
and
of
persons
with
disabilities
in
the
political
process.
For
one
thing,
as
you
well
know,
the
opportunity
costs
of
political
participation
were
formidably
high
for
persons
and
their
families
simply
struggling
to
survive.
In
addition,
the
policy
process
tended
to
work
from
a
very
narrow
policy
narrative
–
one
that
simply
equated
disability
with
cost
and
foreclosed
serious
analysis
of
reform.
This
absence
of
the
most
important
voices
from
the
table
meant
that
these
deficiencies
could
not
be
readily
undone.
The
framers
of
the
convention
were
alive
to
the
fact
that
unless
processes
are
changed
there
will
be
little
effective
outcomes.
The
democratic
system
can
right
itself
–
but
can
only
do
so
when
the
full
panoply
of
voices
are
at
the
table.
That
is
why
the
mantra
‘nothing
about
us
without
us’
is
now
enshrined
in
Article
4
of
the
Convention.
This
requires
ongoing
and
active
consultation
between
Government
an
persons
with
disabilities.
To
govern
is
to
choose.
So
this
does
not
mean
that
persons
with
disabilities
have
a
trump
card.
But
it
does
redress
a
fundamental
flaw
and
so
measurably
enhances
the
prospects
of
greater
equity
and
better
outcomes.
There
is
another
design
flaw
the
framers
were
alive
to.
International
law
exists
‘out
there’
–
in
the
ether.
In
general,
there
is
no
transmission
belt
to
ensure
that
the
10
fresh
air
of
international
law
can
reach
into
and
revive
the
domestic
reform
process.
You
may
score
the
odd
victory
in
Geneva
–
but
there
the
victory
remains.
So
the
trick
is
to
find
some
way
of
ensuring
that
the
norms
of
the
convention
gain
traction
where
they
count
most
–
in
Peoria,
in
Dublin,
in
Lusaka.
They
have
to
become
somehow
‘owned’
by
your
administration
and
mine.
Policy
makers
need
to
become
motivated
to
‘see’
the
symmetry
between
the
convention
and
their
domestic
reform
agenda.
Most
importantly,
policy
makers
should
see
them
selves
as
giving
back
to
the
international
arena.
This
is
a
two
way
street.
The
framers
of
the
convention
actually
took
the
next
logical
step
by
going
beyond
a
simple
listing
of
rights
with
a
monitoring
system
hovering
in
the
pure
ether
of
international
law.
They
put
in
place
a
domestic
institutional
architecture
for
change
in
Article
33.
To
me,
this
articles
lies
at
the
very
heart
of
the
convention
–
for
it
makes
a
stab
at
putting
in
place
an
architecture
of
change
at
home
–
in
Washington
DC
or
Dublin
–
that
can
transform
processes
that
–
if
left
untransformed
–
simply
lead
to
even
more
bad
laws
and
policies.
Article
33.1
demands
the
existence
of
a
Focal
Point
as
well
as
a
Coordination
mechanism
within
Government.
This
gets
at
and
seeks
to
unravel
the
silo
phenomenon
whereby
most
Governments
in
the
world
disperse
responsibility
for
disability
across
many
Departments
and
even
within
Departments.
The
predictable
result
is
the
‘tragedy
of
the
commons’
whereby
no
entity
takes
lead
responsibility
and
the
chaos
that
ensues
creates
massive
cracks
into
which
ordinary
people
fall.
Article
33
is
truly
innovative.
All
the
more
so
when
you
realize
that
the
Convention
requires
this
Government
mechanism
to
consult
actively
with
persons
with
disabilities.
So
far,
so
good.
Yet
something
else
is
needed
to
ratchet
a
dynamic
of
reform
into
place.
Good
governance
is
about
accountability
–
and
accountability
is
not
just
an
end
in
itself
–
it
helps
keep
the
reform
process
moving
in
the
right
direction.
It
underpins
and
not
undermines
effectiveness.
That
is
why
the
framers
took
another
11
logical
step
by
requiring
States
to
designate
an
independent
body
or
set
of
bodies
to
‘promote,
protect
and
monitor’
progress
in
implementing
the
convention.
The
language
is
somewhat
open‐ended
–
an
example
of
constructive
ambiguity
to
bring
along
those
Governments
along
(not
your
Government)
that
do
not
see
accountability
in
quite
the
same
positive
light.
But
the
intent
is
clear.
The
intent
is
to
harness
an
independent
body
in
the
process
of
ensuring
the
norms
are
real
and
not
rhetorical.
Human
rights
commissions,
civil
rights
commission,
national
disability
bodies
such
as
the
NCD,
will
have
to
be
to
the
fore
of
such
bodies.
A
first
step
in
a
rational
process
of
‘designating’
this
independent
entity
or
entities
under
Article
33.2
could
well
be
to
map
out
which
entities
already
do
some
‘promotion,
protection
and
monitoring’
and
to
meld
them
together
appropriately.
The
triangulation
at
the
domestic
level
is
complete
when
one
realizes
that
Article
33.3.
also
requires
that
the
monitoring
that
is
to
be
done
by
the
relevant
independent
body
is
to
be
done
in
active
consultation
with
persons
with
disabilities.
This
is
unique
and
remarkable.
It
has
no
precedent.
It
will
perhaps
prompt
some
thinking
by
commissions
on
the
larger
issue
of
the
relationship
between
independent
commissions
and
civil
society.
At
the
end
of
the
day
such
bodies
still
have
their
functions
to
perform.
But
the
performance
of
these
functions
will
be
very
considerably
enriched
by
interaction
with
civil
society.
There
are
embryonic
models
out
there
but
it
is
early
days
yet.
Article
32
on
International
Cooperation
is
going
to
be
key
in
helping
to
embed
this
dynamic
of
change
especially
in
those
countries
where
disability
has
been
neglected.
It
does
not
specifically
require
development
aid
to
be
increased
or
even
earmarked.
It
does
require
that
development
should
be
inclusive
of
and
accessible
to
persons
with
disabilities
(32.(a)).
To
me
this
entails
the
proofing
of
development
aid
programs
from
a
disability
perspective.
Just
as
important,
it
requires
facilitating
and
supporting
capacity­building
which
includes
the
sharing
of
information,
12
experience,
training
programs
and
best
practice
(32.(b)).
This
will
be
where
your
experience
will
be
most
telling.
Logically,
this
should
lead
the
US
Government
to
find
and
support
ways
of
transferring
both
knowledge
and
skills
from
US
civil
society
to
the
nascent
disability
community
abroad.
And
the
Article
requires
cooperation
with
respect
to
research
as
well
as
technical
assistance.
You
certainly
have
this
research
prowess
and
it
would
be
good
to
see
it
harnessed
to
help
others
ratchet
up
their
own
research
capacity
on
disability.
To
me,
these
process­based
innovations
hold
the
key
to
the
success
of
the
convention.
Unless
the
‘normal’
process
of
change
can
be
enriched
with
disability
perspectives
then
it
is
likely
to
continue
to
ignore
the
just
claims
of
persons
with
disabilities.
5.
The
Future
of
International
Disability
Law
&
Policy.
To
my
way
of
thinking,
you
underplay
the
significance
of
the
convention
if
you
simply
view
it
as
supplying
a
set
of
norms
against
which
to
measure
bad
laws
and
policies.
Instead
I
would
encourage
you
to
see
it
as
an
instrument
that
can
transform
the
process
that
makes
these
laws
in
the
first
place.
The
convention
does
not
simply
impose
obligations
–
it
seeks
to
improve
the
democratic
process
by
opening
it
up
to
voices
that
were
hitherto
excluded
or
discounted.
You
can
only
bring
these
voices
to
the
table
–
and
trust
the
process
to
reach
the
right
outcomes
‐
by
active
listening
to
and
with
persons
with
disabilities
themselves.
The
process
of
drafting
the
convention
showed
how
useful
and
constructive
this
engagement
can
be.
In
my
view,
the
key
to
the
success
of
the
convention
will
be
in
how
well
States
can
embed
the
domestic
institutional
architecture
for
change
envisaged
by
Article
33.
13
The
United
States
has
been
a
global
leader
in
disability
law
reform
for
at
least
the
last
20
years.
Your
legacy
values
–
your
civil
rights
tradition
–
continually
forces
people
to
confront
the
contradiction
between
myth
and
reality.
And
your
focus
on
using
law
to
underpin
freedom
and
choice
–
and
not
undermine
it
–
is
inspiring.
Your
model
is
one
model
and
it
is
not
perfect.
But
you
have
spent
at
least
two
decades
building
it
and
confronting
many
of
the
challenges
and
puzzles
others
now
face.
You
need
to
share
this
‐
partly
to
help
others
and
partly
to
gain
new
perspectives
that
may
help
you
navigate
some
of
your
own
internal
issues.
Europe
is
in
the
middle
of
transforming
its
social
model
to
accommodate
a
civil
rights
perspective.
As
you
are
aware
the
EU
–
as
such
–
has
signed
the
convention
and
is
due
to
ratify
(technically
‘affirm’)
it
by
the
end
of
this
year.
This
could
have
a
dramatic
impact
in
the
kinds
of
legislative
proposals
that
the
European
Commission
presents
to
the
Council
of
Ministers
and
the
European
Parliament.
And
it
should
also
dramatically
impact
the
EU
development
aid
budget
which
is
now
the
single
largest
aid
budget
in
the
world.
More
interestingly,
from
your
point
of
view,
the
EU
ratification
only
affects
EU
law
in
as
much
as
the
EU
has
legal
competence.
In
point
of
fact,
most
legal
competences
with
respect
to
disability
is
retained
by
the
EU
Member
States.
The
EU
Presidency
(of
the
Council
of
Ministers)
has
now
agreed
to
share
perspectives
as
between
the
Member
States
with
respect
to
both
ratification
and
implementation.
I
think
it
is
fair
to
say
that
the
Member
States
understand
the
need
for
common
legislative
and
policy
approaches
even
where
the
matter
in
question
is
not
squarely
a
matter
for
EU
law
as
such.
It
is
also
interesting
to
note
that
a
number
of
EU
Member
States
are
either
adopting
National
Disability
Strategies
for
the
first
time
because
of
the
convention
or
amending
them.
Indeed,
Australia
has
publically
pledged
to
adopt
a
National
Disability
Strategy
based
explicitly
on
the
convention.
To
me
the
convention,
if
and
when
ratified
by
the
United
States,
should
help
reinforce
law
reform
trends
in
this
country.
It
does
not
fatally
undermine
your
sovereign
responsibilities
–
it
helps
align
them
with
challenges
faced
elsewhere.
If
14
you
ratify
then
it
will
be
at
least
possible
for
the
domestic
courts
to
take
the
convention
into
account
–
among
other
factors
–
in
the
interpretation
of
domestic
legislation.
This
does
not
supplant
your
legislation
and
the
primacy
of
your
Legislature.
Yet
it
is
certainly
a
desideratum
within
all
common
law
countries
to
interpret
domestic
law
–
if
at
all
possible
–
in
a
manner
consistent
with
your
international
legal
obligations.
As
Justice
Stephen
Breyer
would
put
it,
this
would
enables
you
to
have
a
meaningful
conversation
with
the
world
on
common
challenges.
Furthermore,
there
is
sufficient
‘margin
of
appreciation’
to
allow
discretion
at
the
domestic
level.
And
the
aforementioned
concept
of
‘progressive
achievement’
affords
sufficient
latitude
for
the
US
and
other
States
to
begin
laying
the
ground
work
for
social
supports
to
underpin
freedom.
Additionally
the
new
Conference
of
States
Parties
would
appear
to
provide
a
unique
platform
to
initiate
a
serious
sharing
of
ideas,
experience
and
expertise
to
trigger
the
law
reform
process
worldwide.
You
gain
–
we
all
gain
–
through
active
participation
on
this.
I
know
this
can
also
be
done
bilaterally.
But
the
impact
would
be
magnified
many
times
over
through
active
participation
on
the
Conference
of
States
Parties.
You
also
have
invaluable
experience
with
respect
to
your
institutional
architecture
for
change.
No
sustainable
process
of
change
will
happen
unless
this
is
gotten
right.
Very
few
countries
have
this
and
are
eager
to
learn.
Article
32
on
International
Cooperation
provides
a
‘window’
through
which
to
channel
support
for
this
process
of
change.
To
me
this
isn’t
just
about
knowledge
of
laws
and
policies
–
its
probably
more
to
do
with
transferring
skills
and
know‐how.
When
Jefferson
was
based
in
Paris
he
reputedly
had
a
small
part
to
play
in
the
drafting
of
the
French
Declaration
of
the
Rights
of
Man.
He
was
a
true
internationalist
and
understood
that
the
pursuit
of
liberty
knew
no
borders.
He
15
couldn’t
face
the
contradictions
between
the
myth
of
equality
and
the
reality.
But
we
can.
Let
me
so
bold
as
to
suggest
that
as
you
face
the
process
of
ratification
and
then
implementation
that
the
spirit
of
freedom
represented
by
Jefferson
be
your
guide.
Let
me
conclude
by
saying
that
the
convention
is
actually
much
more
important
than
its
application
to
disability.
I
think
it
is
best
to
think
of
the
convention
as
articulating
a
theory
of
justice
that
every
citizen
can
subscribe
to
and
in
which
every
citizen
has
a
stake
in
its
success.
It
is
not
a
case
of
special
rights
for
a
particular
group.
It
is
about
equal
rights
for
all.
And
it
is
about
making
the
democratic
process
open
to
all
voices
so
that
blockages
can
be
dissolved
and
solutions
found
to
deal
with
the
legacy
of
the
past
and
build
a
more
inclusive
society
or
all.
So
the
American
disability
rights
revolution
now
belongs
to
all
and
we
again
look
to
you
for
leadership.
16